Michael Gerson lays out what Senate Republicans are doing. THIS defines Trump Derangement Syndrome: Support of Trump over any semblance of democracy, due process and the rule of law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-pushes-his-party-to-normalize-corruption/2020/01/20/0922102c-3bc1-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump's Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump's solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, "Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen."

"Things happen." This is a revealingly ludicrous response to a charge of public corruption. No, trying to cheat in a presidential election is not like losing your keys or getting caught in the rain without your umbrella. Those are the kinds of "things" that just happen. The evidence that Trump cut off military aid to a friendly government in the middle of an armed conflict to compel that government to announce the investigation of a political rival is overwhelming. Several administration officials found this action so unethical, dangerous and disturbing that they expressed their alarm to relevant authorities. Those who dismiss such accusations as a political vendetta or a coup attempt are engaged in willful deception.
And because Trump denies any wrongdoing pronouncing his own actions "perfect" senators who vote for his vindication are effectively blessing such abuses in the future. Their action would set an expectation of corruption at the highest levels of our government.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Michael Gerson lays out what Senate Republicans are doing. THIS defines Trump Derangement Syndrome: Support of Trump over any semblance of democracy, due process and the rule of law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-pushes-his-party-to-normalize-corruption/2020/01/20/0922102c-3bc1-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump's Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump's solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, "Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen."

"Things happen." This is a revealingly ludicrous response to a charge of public corruption. No, trying to cheat in a presidential election is not like losing your keys or getting caught in the rain without your umbrella. Those are the kinds of "things" that just happen. The evidence that Trump cut off military aid to a friendly government in the middle of an armed conflict to compel that government to announce the investigation of a political rival is overwhelming. Several administration officials found this action so unethical, dangerous and disturbing that they expressed their alarm to relevant authorities. Those who dismiss such accusations as a political vendetta or a coup attempt are engaged in willful deception.
And because Trump denies any wrongdoing pronouncing his own actions "perfect" senators who vote for his vindication are effectively blessing such abuses in the future. Their action would set an expectation of corruption at the highest levels of our government.

---

Were you critical of the process that the House just went through?

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power?

I disagree. I think the question is was the push for investigating the 2016 election and Biden for political gain or in the best interest of the country. Considering Biden bragged about withholding aid for political purpose, I think it's the latter.

Kyle said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Michael Gerson lays out what Senate Republicans are doing. THIS defines Trump Derangement Syndrome: Support of Trump over any semblance of democracy, due process and the rule of law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-pushes-his-party-to-normalize-corruption/2020/01/20/0922102c-3bc1-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump's Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump's solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, "Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen."

"Things happen." This is a revealingly ludicrous response to a charge of public corruption. No, trying to cheat in a presidential election is not like losing your keys or getting caught in the rain without your umbrella. Those are the kinds of "things" that just happen. The evidence that Trump cut off military aid to a friendly government in the middle of an armed conflict to compel that government to announce the investigation of a political rival is overwhelming. Several administration officials found this action so unethical, dangerous and disturbing that they expressed their alarm to relevant authorities. Those who dismiss such accusations as a political vendetta or a coup attempt are engaged in willful deception.
And because Trump denies any wrongdoing pronouncing his own actions "perfect" senators who vote for his vindication are effectively blessing such abuses in the future. Their action would set an expectation of corruption at the highest levels of our government.

---

Were you critical of the process that the House just went through?

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power?

I disagree. I think the question is was the push for investigating the 2016 election and Biden for political gain or in the best interest of the country. Considering Biden bragged about withholding aid for political purpose, I think it's the latter.

---

Agreed. Compared to the backroom, contrived testimony of the impeachment circus, we have unequivocal evidence of a sitting vice president threatening a foreign government to stop an investigation into a company that is bribing him. Yet, the TDSers do not care about that but only that President Trump wanted it investigated because of well, TDS.

Only people lacking in self-awareness lack today's Democrat Party could literally watch that impeachment circus - from the secret "whistleblower" to the committee chair texting CNN to the pens - and then demand suddenly the Senate follow decorum, protocol, and rules, with a straight face.

At the end of the day, as there is plenty, unequivocal evidence, the TDSers were going to impeach Trump regardless of whether it was warranted. They did it, now www.moveon.org.

If we're going to impeach presidents for purely political reasons, then every president moving forward will be impeached.

---

and let's remember this is coming from many people who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, who marched for women's rights (even though they have not lost any) wore vulgar hats and held up disgusting signs, incited violence after the elections and wanted to ruin a man's professional career over a woman's claims of assault that "happened" 36 years prior and was unsupported by her own facts or anyone else's...TDS indeed.

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime.

---

This entire circus centers on the president's attempt to investigate a former vice president soliciting bribes from foreign officials ... you get that right? Are you arguing we should launch a formal investigation into Joe Biden?

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

---

Oh you just making up **** now lol

---

That is what Sondland testified. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's made up.

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

---

He didn't say the things that you have in quotes. The Ukraine didn't even know the aide was being held up and in the end, they got the aid without investigating.

No matter how mad you and the Dems want him to be guilty, he just isn't.

---

I shouldn't have to explain the concept of an analogue to adults who allegedly have degrees from Baylor. No, Trump didn't say those words in quotes, but the words he did say in conjunction with the actions he took make those analogous examples. You can't just pretend like all of the circumstantial evidence and testimony (especially Sondland, who testified that Ukraine did know that the aid was being withheld and asked about it) illustrating the scheme simply doesn't exist, no matter how bad you want it to not be so. It also doesn't matter that the administration reversed course after they knew they'd been caught, they still allegedly engaged in the scheme.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

---

Oh you just making up **** now lol

---

That is what Sondland testified. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's made up.

---

What others have testified go against Sondland...so why are you going with his conclusions instead of figuring out what really happened?

---

Tell you what, why don't we let all of the relevant parties testify to the Senate? Even better if we compel the WH to turn over subpoenaed documents too. Maybe then we can sort out who's lying or not.

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

---

He didn't say the things that you have in quotes. The Ukraine didn't even know the aide was being held up and in the end, they got the aid without investigating.

No matter how mad you and the Dems want him to be guilty, he just isn't.

---

I shouldn't have to explain the concept of an analogue to adults who allegedly have degrees from Baylor. No, Trump didn't say those words in quotes, but the words he did say in conjunction with the actions he took make those analogous examples. You can't just pretend like all of the circumstantial evidence and testimony (especially Sondland, who testified that Ukraine did know that the aid was being withheld and asked about it) illustrating the scheme simply doesn't exist, no matter how bad you want it to not be so. It also doesn't matter that the administration reversed course after they knew they'd been caught, they still allegedly engaged in the scheme.

---

1. YOU added the quotes, I didn't.
2. The favor was directly related to the previous election. Biden was not mentioned until much later in the conversation.
3. The president of Ukraine has said that he had no idea and felt no pressure.

So the person supposedly proposing the solicitation denies it and the person supposedly the subject of said solicitation denies it.

As far as Sondland, he said that there was no quid pro quo...and then changed his story. He also said he "presumed."

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

Except that he didn't do that. He was seeking help in investigating a possibly corrupt public official. Biden even bragged about his actions on video. If Trump is guilty, then so is Biden.

---

If Trump had asked Zelensky simply to investigate corruption and stopped there, he'd be getting a pat on the back. But that's not what happened. Trump asked for an investigation announcement specifically tailored to damage his most likely Dem opponent in the 2020 election. "Please investigate corruption" is acceptable, "investigate Biden or you don't get to come to the White House, and oh by the way I'm withholding the aid Congress allocated for Ukraine until you do" is not. I can't make you see the distinction, but it is there and it is glaring (you kind of gave the game away when you acknowledged that Trump was asking for an investigation of one specific family instead of broad corruption).

Biden can credibly point out that he had the backing of the entire US government (even including some GOP Senators), the EU, and the main domestic anti-corruption entity in Ukraine. In contrast, members of Trump's own administration knew the scheme was unethical and illegal to the point of speaking up (probably why Trump went to such lengths to keep the scheme away from official channels, prosecutors would call that consciousness of guilt). Trump even had his goons (i.e. the Russian spies funneling Russian money in to GOP campaigns) spying on his own Ambassador to Ukraine because she wouldn't go blindly along with Trump's corruption.

---

He didn't say the things that you have in quotes. The Ukraine didn't even know the aide was being held up and in the end, they got the aid without investigating.

No matter how mad you and the Dems want him to be guilty, he just isn't.

---

I shouldn't have to explain the concept of an analogue to adults who allegedly have degrees from Baylor. No, Trump didn't say those words in quotes, but the words he did say in conjunction with the actions he took make those analogous examples. You can't just pretend like all of the circumstantial evidence and testimony (especially Sondland, who testified that Ukraine did know that the aid was being withheld and asked about it) illustrating the scheme simply doesn't exist, no matter how bad you want it to not be so. It also doesn't matter that the administration reversed course after they knew they'd been caught, they still allegedly engaged in the scheme.

---

1. YOU added the quotes, I didn't.
2. The favor was directly related to the previous election. Biden was not mentioned until much later in the conversation.
3. The president of Ukraine has said that he had no idea and felt no pressure.

So the person supposedly proposing the solicitation denies it and the person supposedly the subject of said solicitation denies it.

As far as Sondland, he said that there was no quid pro quo...and then changed his story. He also said he "presumed."

---

There's also no 'quid pro quo' charge in the articles.

Doc Holliday said:

---

House Dems declared they proved their impeachment case "beyond a doubt".

Yesterday, they started the impeachment trial declaring they still needed a ton of facts in order to prove their case.

This can't go both ways. Which is it?

---

Again, they want him to be guilty so badly, they can't see any other reasoning.

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

House Dems declared they proved their impeachment case "beyond a doubt".

Yesterday, they started the impeachment trial declaring they still needed a ton of facts in order to prove their case.

This can't go both ways. Which is it?

---

Again, they want him to be guilty so badly, they can't see any other reasoning.

---

It's full on desperation mode, and I'll tell you why:

The DNC is in major debt, Democrats are losing minority voters, populism is surging all over the planet and MSM has lost it's ability to tow the old guard talking points.

They're trying to convince you that they're not the ones out of touch, wrong or losing. Everything is Russia's fault, collusion, hacking, stealing, bribery...never themselves.

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

Soliciting bribes? When did that happen?

Also, there's Executive Privilege.

---

Trump solicited something of personal value to him (the announcement of an investigation into Biden specifically) from Zelensky, and he conditioned an official act (a WH meeting between Zelensky and Trump, plus the infamous military aid, and before that a meeting with Pence that was cancelled when Zelensky wouldn't play ball) on Zelensky's production of that thing of personal value. Solicitation and the conditioning of an official act are the statutory elements of bribery.

18 US Code 201
(b) Whoever
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act

---

The problem with this theory is that the alleged thing of value was also most likely an official act. The bribery law isn't and can't be construed to prohibit the exchange of official acts, regardless of whether they involve personal benefit. Otherwise they'd be prohibiting diplomacy itself.

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This seems pertinent. Trump openly flaunts his disregard for the law, and his barking seals clap for it.

---

Disregard for what law?

---

Trump is currently ignoring lawful subpoenas to turn over documents, which is what he's bragging about in that clip. He also flagrantly disregarded the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act according to his own GAO. Soliciting bribes from foreign officials is also a crime. And those are just the ones relating to this specific set of events.

---

What subpoenas do you contend are still outstanding?

"I shouldn't have to explain the concept of an analogue"

You can't use quotes in your 'analogue' then pretend you were honest.